I keep saying, that I would be open to changing my stance on SSM if opponents of it could tell what these awful 'consequences' would be. I continually ask what they are, but not a single person has been able to give me a concrete answer, they just throw up airy-fairy bullshit.

I keep saying, that I would be open to changing my stance on SSM if opponents of it could tell what these awful 'consequences' would be. I continually ask what they are, but not a single person has been able to give me a concrete answer, they just throw up airy-fairy bullshit.

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Craig and Mullins apparently didn't have trouble finding another baker to make a cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, for their later out-of-state wedding. It's not as if Phillips prevented them from getting a cake from anywhere in America.

Seriously, a baker has to make a cake for a gay couple. That's the fallout from marriage equality.

But his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS are under attack! Can you imagine how personally violated he must feel having to abide by Colorado's clear anti-discrimination laws? Much, much worse than forcing a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound.

I don't think he should be forced to and I don't think he should be fined or jailed. But it's a fucking dumb business decision and I hope he goes close to bankruptcy or cops anger from customers, and then maybe he will realise that not making a cake for a gay couple because you think God's gonna start smiting is stupidest thing anyone could ever do.

But shit, INDY, if that's the best defence you can come up with for the "consequences" of same-sex marriage then you're on thin ice my friend. Weak.

But I still say - if a SSM opponent could show me the terrible consequences that have occurred in the Netherlands, or NZ, or whatever, then I am very open to changing my mind. After all, if these consequences are going to be so bad, maybe us proponents have been wrong all along.

Seriously, and not to be overly cranky even though I am anyway, but this is not the 1960s civil rights amendment. This won't put any party in the wilderness for a generation (well, maybe the GOP but don't count on it, and not for this reason). It's a no brainer and it's going to happen. Cities will not burn, presidents will not resign in despair.